Enrollment/Facilities Planning in FCPS

[Anonymous]

Has FCPS just put facilities planning and enrollment projections on indefinite hold until they find a successor to Karen Garza? Usually by mid-November they have made a presentation to the School Board on enrollment projections and a draft CIP has been made public. This year - nothing.

This is one area where FCPS had gotten much better in recent years (and is better than some other school systems). Are they just going to sit back and do nothing this year?

[Anonymous]

The draft CIP will be presented to the School Board after Thanksgiving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has FCPS just put facilities planning and enrollment projections on indefinite hold until they find a successor to Karen Garza? Usually by mid-November they have made a presentation to the School Board on enrollment projections and a draft CIP has been made public. This year - nothing.

This is one area where FCPS had gotten much better in recent years (and is better than some other school systems). Are they just going to sit back and do nothing this year?

Next Monday's work session (12/5) includes a two-hour discussion of "membership analysis and trends":



http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=AFTREF6DA175

Staff Contact: Jeffrey K. Platenberg, assistant superintendent, Facilities and Transportation Services

Other Staff Present: Susan Quinn, chief operating officer
Kevin Sneed, special projects administrator, Facilities and Transportation Services

Meeting Category: December 5, 2016 - Work Session

Subject: Membership Analysis and Trends

School Board Action Required: Discussion


Key Points:

Student enrollment in Fairfax County Public Schools showed moderate growth this year, in spite of the slight growth experienced last year. As has previously been communicated, various factors alter year to year membership changes and student enrollment projections. The two most important factors that influence the overall FCPS membership changes and student enrollment projections are the birth to kindergarten ratio and net migration. A third factor that alters membership and the student enrollment projections for individual schools from year to year is student transfers due to program access needs and the student transfer regulation.

Staff implemented and experienced success using a new student enrollment and demographics projection methodology in October 2015 for the five-year projections and in March 2016 for the September 30, 2016 projections. The methodology is based on best practices and includes the use of Geographic Information System (GIS) technology. GIS technology pulls Student Information System (SIS) data by student ID number. It allows for improved sorting, tracking, and mapping of students based on their residence and actual school of attendance. This precision in data analysis and the ability to account for each student in the student enrollment projection process resulted in better projections performance predicting September 30, 2016 membership, as compared to the performance predicting the September 30, 2015 membership. Staff is continuing to adjust and refine the projection methodology as new data sets are being considered and analyzed for possible future incorporation into the methodology.

For today’s work session, the Facilities and Transportation Services staff have prepared detailed information and charts that show the current conditions as well as comparison information between this year’s and last year’s membership. Information is also presented about the performance of the new student enrollment projections methodology. The latest five-year projections, projected capacity balances, and projected capacity balance maps are provided for the Board’s consideration. These projected conditions will lead to the FY 2018-22 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) recommendations which will be proposed on December 15, 2016. A CIP public hearing is scheduled for January 10, 2017. A School Board work session is scheduled for January 23, 2017. The action to vote on the FY 2018-22 Capital Improvement Program is scheduled for January 26, 2017.


Attachments: To be provided prior to the meeting.

[Anonymous]

Two attachments are now posted:

Attachment A - SY 2016-17 Membership Analysis and Trends
http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/AG94A7057B82/$file/Attachment%20A%20-%20SY%202016-17%20Membership%20Analysis%20and%20Trends.pdf

Attachment B - Region Charts
http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/AG94A9057E62/$file/Attachment%20B%20-%20Region%20Charts.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Two attachments are now posted:

Attachment A - SY 2016-17 Membership Analysis and Trends
http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/AG94A7057B82/$file/Attachment%20A%20-%20SY%202016-17%20Membership%20Analysis%20and%20Trends.pdf

Attachment B - Region Charts
http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/AG94A9057E62/$file/Attachment%20B%20-%20Region%20Charts.pdf

The projections for Cooper MS don't seem to factor in the addition of AAP to the school. The projected enrollment declines at Langley also appear overstated.

[Anonymous]

Well, it looks like West Potomac is heading toward a boundary change. Both Mount Vernon and Hayfield are severely under-enrolled and can absorb the overcapacity at West Potomac.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, it looks like West Potomac is heading toward a boundary change. Both Mount Vernon and Hayfield are severely under-enrolled and can absorb the overcapacity at West Potomac.

That would be a good idea. FCPS should move part of West Springfield to Lee as well. If it was OK to move neighborhoods on the other side of both 495 and 95 from Annandale to Edison a few years ago, it surely ought to be OK to move part of West Springfield to Lee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, it looks like West Potomac is heading toward a boundary change. Both Mount Vernon and Hayfield are severely under-enrolled and can absorb the overcapacity at West Potomac.

That would be a good idea. FCPS should move part of West Springfield to Lee as well. If it was OK to move neighborhoods on the other side of both 495 and 95 from Annandale to Edison a few years ago, it surely ought to be OK to move part of West Springfield to Lee.

Yup. I could easily see moving Fort Hunt or Waynewood to Mount Vernon and Groveton to Hayfield as a solution. I could also see moving more of South County like Mason Neck and parts of Lorton back to Hayfield. That would give south county room to absorb from Lake Braddock and Robinson, which in turn could take on some of the over capacity at Woodson. Moving parts of Annandale back would likely help Woodson as well.

And yes, I can definitely see more of West Springfield being moved to Lee. Daventry already is zoned there, so it wouldn't be mind blowing to move a few other elementary schools into that pyramid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, it looks like West Potomac is heading toward a boundary change. Both Mount Vernon and Hayfield are severely under-enrolled and can absorb the overcapacity at West Potomac.

That would be a good idea. FCPS should move part of West Springfield to Lee as well. If it was OK to move neighborhoods on the other side of both 495 and 95 from Annandale to Edison a few years ago, it surely ought to be OK to move part of West Springfield to Lee.

Yup. I could easily see moving Fort Hunt or Waynewood to Mount Vernon and Groveton to Hayfield as a solution. I could also see moving more of South County like Mason Neck and parts of Lorton back to Hayfield. That would give south county room to absorb from Lake Braddock and Robinson, which in turn could take on some of the over capacity at Woodson. Moving parts of Annandale back would likely help Woodson as well.

And yes, I can definitely see more of West Springfield being moved to Lee. Daventry already is zoned there, so it wouldn't be mind blowing to move a few other elementary schools into that pyramid.

Didn't daventry just get rezoned to West Springfield a couple years ago? I thought the parents threw a huge fit that their kids went to Irving and then to Lee, and petitioned to get to go to WSHS. (The more logical thing to do would be to send them to Key/Lee since both are underenrolled, but whatever)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, it looks like West Potomac is heading toward a boundary change. Both Mount Vernon and Hayfield are severely under-enrolled and can absorb the overcapacity at West Potomac.

That would be a good idea. FCPS should move part of West Springfield to Lee as well. If it was OK to move neighborhoods on the other side of both 495 and 95 from Annandale to Edison a few years ago, it surely ought to be OK to move part of West Springfield to Lee.

Yup. I could easily see moving Fort Hunt or Waynewood to Mount Vernon and Groveton to Hayfield as a solution. I could also see moving more of South County like Mason Neck and parts of Lorton back to Hayfield. That would give south county room to absorb from Lake Braddock and Robinson, which in turn could take on some of the over capacity at Woodson. Moving parts of Annandale back would likely help Woodson as well.

And yes, I can definitely see more of West Springfield being moved to Lee. Daventry already is zoned there, so it wouldn't be mind blowing to move a few other elementary schools into that pyramid.

Didn't daventry just get rezoned to West Springfield a couple years ago? I thought the parents threw a huge fit that their kids went to Irving and then to Lee, and petitioned to get to go to WSHS. (The more logical thing to do would be to send them to Key/Lee since both are underenrolled, but whatever)

Nope. They are zoned for Lee and key now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: I could also see moving more of South County like Mason Neck and parts of Lorton back to Hayfield. That would give south county room to absorb from Lake Braddock and Robinson, which in turn could take on some of the over capacity at Woodson. Moving parts of Annandale back would likely help Woodson as well.

Yes, please, to all of these excellent suggestions!

[Anonymous]

And what about the Marshall pyramid? Didn't Marshall just complete a renovation? And it's already over-enrolled? And some of the ES are only going to get more crowded!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And what about the Marshall pyramid? Didn't Marshall just complete a renovation? And it's already over-enrolled? And some of the ES are only going to get more crowded!

The answer is easy. Move boundary to send some kids to falls church and others to Langley

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And what about the Marshall pyramid? Didn't Marshall just complete a renovation? And it's already over-enrolled? And some of the ES are only going to get more crowded!

FCPS can always move some of the apartments in Tysons from Marshall and McLean to Langley, which has space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And what about the Marshall pyramid? Didn't Marshall just complete a renovation? And it's already over-enrolled? And some of the ES are only going to get more crowded!

The answer is easy. Move boundary to send some kids to falls church and others to Langley

Falls Church is growing and needs to be able to accommodate anticipated growth at Stuart. I can't see anyone at Marshall getting moved there.

Both Marshall and McLean families have to pay attention to what FCPS does at Langley, which was expanded even though it was under-enrolled and is expected to continue to have declining enrollments. There is a long track record of FCPS letting Langley cherry-pick additional, expensive single-family neighborhoods. If FCPS moves kids out of Marshall and McLean, they ought to be looking at moving students in apartments in Tysons to Langley, not the most expensive neighborhoods (those in 22182 zoned for Marshall or in 22101 zoned for McLean).